NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say that there are two people. One of these people gives the other a lethal poison. This poison will not begin to take affect until a certain period of time, such a few days, and if an antidote is given it will postpone the effects of the poison for another period. However, the poison will remain in the subject's body for a year, and so the antidote will have to be taken regularly until then.

My question to you, oh populace of NSG, is this- Is the poisoner obligated to provide this regular antidote to the poisonee? What if producing the antidote is an extremely grueling task, which will be very draining on the poisoner? What should be the consequences for the poisoner if he fails to provide the poisonee with the antidote and the poisonee dies?

Let's say that there are two people. One of these people gives the other a lethal poison. This poison will not begin to take affect until a certain period of time, such a few days, and if an antidote is given it will postpone the effects of the poison for another period. However, the poison will remain in the subject's body for a year, and so the antidote will have to be taken regularly until then.

My question to you, oh populace of NSG, is this- Is the poisoner obligated to provide this regular antidote to the poisonee? What if producing the antidote is an extremely grueling task, which will be very draining on the poisoner? What should be the consequences for the poisoner if he fails to provide the poisonee with the antidote and the poisonee dies?

If the poisoner didn't it would be murder.

If the poisoner didn't it would be murder.

I agree with Valia.

Why did he poison the person in the first place?

My question to you, oh populace of NSG, is this- Is the poisoner obligated to provide this regular antidote to the poisonee? What if producing the antidote is an extremely grueling task, which will be very draining on the poisoner? What should be the consequences for the poisoner if he fails to provide the poisonee with the antidote and the poisonee dies?

If the poison was given without consent, the poisoner should indeed be obligated to provide the antidote to the poisonee, period.

What I want to know is, why even bother giving the poison if you're not going to let it take affect on the person, I guess you could use it for blackmail, but still. Seem like there would be a simpler way of blackmailing someone.

Why did he poison the person in the first place?

For any reason other than as retribution for an aggression committed by the poisonee. It could be an accident, or it could be intentional.

For any reason other than as retribution for an aggression committed by the poisonee. It could be an accident, or it could be intentional.
Ah... Ok.

Then if such a poisoning was acidental, yes, the poisoner has a moral obligation to provide help as to not kill the other person. The other person did nothing wrong, wereas it was the fault of the maker of the poison that said poisoning happened.

Should it be intentional, that depends upon the reason for the poisoning.

Let's say that there are two people. One of these people gives the other a lethal poison. This poison will not begin to take affect until a certain period of time, such a few days, and if an antidote is given it will postpone the effects of the poison for another period. However, the poison will remain in the subject's body for a year, and so the antidote will have to be taken regularly until then.

My question to you, oh populace of NSG, is this- Is the poisoner obligated to provide this regular antidote to the poisonee? What if producing the antidote is an extremely grueling task, which will be very draining on the poisoner? What should be the consequences for the poisoner if he fails to provide the poisonee with the antidote and the poisonee dies?
Not necessarily, although in some cses perhaps, most particularly if the poisoner is a legal person only. The default assumption in justice systems with which I am familiar is in that in absence of a specific ruling to the contrary, there is no obligation to provide the antidote. Such an imposition is highly unlikey to be imposed on an actual person, especially if providing the antidote required something more than merely financing the antidote.

Contempt of court or similar sanctions are the likely outcome of any failure to meet the obligation if it has been imposed.

Why was the poison administered in the first place?

What a ridiculous analogy. It fails because the poisonee didn't even exist before the poisoning took place. Nor is the poisonee fully in existence as a person until the "year" is nearly over.

What a ridiculous analogy. It fails because the poisonee didn't even exist before the poisoning took place. Nor is the poisonee fully in existence as a person until the "year" is nearly over.

Uh... what?

Uh... what?
Gartef is referring to the OP's intent in raising the 'hypothetical situation'. To cut the chase short, the OP's intended conclusion is along the lines of 'therefore abortion should be illegal'.

Uh... what?

The hypothetical situation is intended as a straw man argument for another debate.

Uh... what?

Caution: You have unknowingly entered an abortion thread.

What a ridiculous analogy. It fails because the poisonee didn't even exist before the poisoning took place. Nor is the poisonee fully in existence as a person until the "year" is nearly over.

A position which is supported by science, common sense and Scripture*.
While the OPs intended position is supported by... eeehm... nothing ?


* Unless one believes the Bible is a series of unrelated quotes which should all be translated to have the meaning you like best regardless of context of course. After all, why would one bother to read the whole damn book and be informed about the choices translators make ? It is not like you are going to base your life on it.
Oh wait...

Nice catch. I knew something looked off.

Uh, yeah, under most circumstances the poisoner has to provide an antecdote. But certain things (piosonee is going to kill someone, poisoner has to do something drastically world-scale) would alter the situation.

Gartef is referring to the OP's intent in raising the 'hypothetical situation'. To cut the chase short, the OP's intended conclusion is along the lines of 'therefore abortion should be illegal'.

The hypothetical situation is intended as a straw man argument for another debate.

Caution: You have unknowingly entered an abortion thread.
Fuck!

What a ridiculous analogy. It fails because the poisonee didn't even exist before the poisoning took place. Nor is the poisonee fully in existence as a person until the "year" is nearly over.

So what you're saying is... (http://smilies.vidahost.com/ups/dvx_rune/lol.gif)

This reminds me of the time Baron Harkonnen poisoned Duke Leto's mentat and fed him antidote to keep him "loyal".

Now that's a moral dilemma!